Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

In Florida, criminal cases often hinge on whether evidence collected by law enforcement can be used in court. A key tool for defense attorneys is the motion to suppress, which aims to have evidence thrown out because it was obtained illegally. While a successful motion to suppress can be a major win for a defendant, it’s important to understand that these victories aren’t always guaranteed. Even favorable rulings can be appealed by the state, and a recent case highlights the importance of having qualified legal representation throughout the entire legal process.

A recent case in Florida highlights these challenges. The defendant was stopped by deputies for operating a motorized scooter in the middle of the road. The officers claimed to detect the odor of cannabis and demanded that the defendant hand over two packs he was carrying. Rather than comply, the defendant fled, abandoning the packs in a hotel parking lot before being apprehended. Upon searching the packs, deputies found cannabis, trafficking amounts of fentanyl, crack cocaine, cash, and other evidence. The defendant argued that the searches were unlawful, asserting that the deputies needed a warrant to examine the contents of the packs. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress the evidence, seemingly handing the defendant a significant legal victory.

However, the state appealed the trial court’s ruling, and the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court determined that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search because he had abandoned the packs while fleeing from law enforcement. Under the law, individuals can only claim Fourth Amendment protections if they have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or the item seized. By discarding the packs, the defendant forfeited any reasonable expectation of privacy. As a result, the deputies’ search was deemed lawful, and the suppressed evidence was reinstated. With this evidence back in play, the defendant now faces the possibility of significant jail time.

In Florida, criminal defendants can face significant challenges during their trials, particularly when police testimony exceeds the boundaries set by prosecutors’ questions. Such overreaching testimony can unfairly influence a jury, leading to potentially unjust outcomes. Recently, a Florida court of appeals addressed a defendant’s challenge regarding broad police testimony, discussing how such situations are handled and when a mistrial might be considered versus when a curative jury instruction can be deemed sufficient.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the case involved a defendant charged with trafficking methamphetamine after an undercover operation. The undercover officer arranged a controlled buy, during which the defendant sold him 14 grams of methamphetamine. At trial, the defendant admitted to the sale but claimed entrapment, arguing he was coerced into selling a larger quantity than he intended. Despite his defense, the jury convicted him of trafficking.

On appeal, the defendant argued for a mistrial based on the undercover officer’s testimony, which he claimed went beyond the scope of the questions asked and included personal interpretations of his statements. The defense objected to parts of the recording from the controlled buy, citing the irrelevance and potential prejudice of the officers’ crosstalk. They contended that these elements unfairly impacted the jury’s view of the evidence.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before a district court in Florida, the State asked the court to reconsider the lower court’s decision to suppress evidence in a drug case. The lower court had originally ruled that the defendant’s motion to suppress should be granted, given that several police officers executing a warrant failed to knock and announce their presence prior to entering his hotel room. On appeal, however, the higher court found that the officers did not actually need to knock before entering, thus granting the State’s request and remanding the case back for further proceedings.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was residing in a hotel room, one that had sliding glass doors. While he was in the hotel room, officers came looking for him in order to execute a warrant for his arrest. Upon seeing him inside the room, the officers noticed the defendant had narcotics and drug paraphernalia around him.

The officers entered the defendant’s room and arrested him. The State later charged the defendant with possession of a controlled substance. Upon being charged, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing the officers should have knocked and announced their presence before entering the room. The lower court granted the motion, and the State promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before a district court in Florida, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. After the defendant was charged with drug-related crimes, his case went to trial, and a jury found him guilty as charged. On appeal, the defendant argued that the confidential informant working against him illegally offered sex in exchange for his criminal activity, therefore coercing him to sell cocaine and leading him to his guilty conviction. Reviewing the record of the case, the district court eventually denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case met the confidential informant several years ago without knowing she was secretly working for the government. The defendant and the informant became close friends, and the informant supposedly told the defendant that they could be sole mates. Over time, the defendant began trusting the informant, and he believed they were in an intimate relationship.

After several months of this relationship, the defendant brought the informant with him to a meeting in which he would exchange money for a kilo of cocaine. Unbeknownst to the defendant, the drug dealer was actually an undercover officer, and eventually, the State charged the defendant for his participation in the cocaine dealing.

Continue reading →

Polk county resident David Scott Schultz, 32, delayed his arrest last week when Polk County deputies attempted to serve a search warrant on his residence for suspicion that Shultz was using his home as a marijuana grow house. According to deputies, after knocking on Shultz’s door and speaking with him he refused to allow them in. After some time went by deputies smelled the odor of marijuana and ultimately learned that Shultz simply wanted to smoke one last joint before being taken in to custody. Shultz eventually opened the door and was taken in to custody without incident. Shultz was arrested on charges of maintaining a dwelling for drug manufacturing, cultivation of cannabis, possession of cannabis with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Mr. Schultz has pretty run of the mill Florida drug charges though he could benefit from the help of a Polk county criminal lawyer. Shultz’s charge for being in possession of a dwelling used for drug manufacturing is no doubt his biggest concern when defending against these charges. This Florida crime is a second degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in the Florida Department of Corrections. Florida statue 893.1351(2) makes it a crime for a person to knowingly be in actual or constructive possession of any place, structure, or part thereof, trailer, or other conveyance with the knowledge that the place…. will be used …. for the sale of a controlled substance, as provided in s. 893.13; or for the manufacture of a controlled substance intended for sale or distribution to another.
Continue reading →